8. Under the Law Merchant/Uniform Commercial Code, it is
assumed that all contracts and Persons existent within this
defined geographical kingdom fall under the General Commercial
Jurisdiction of the State.1 In a somewhat similar way, Judges
have given the King automatic jurisdiction over everything
within the geographical perimeters of his Kingdom.2 Therefore,
the Law Merchant (which is the Common Law of contracts applied
to Merchants in King's Commerce), and its codified organic
progeny, the UCC, combine to offer you and your Commercial
contract the important benefit of Government intervention and
enforcement of whatever contract it was that you negotiated.
Assume for a moment that you are a Judge, and so now ask
yourself if that is not a very legitimate benefit to be
offering; so now you can possibly see why reserving the right to
call upon the police powers of the State to enforce your
contracts, as everyone automatically does by their silence, is a
very powerful instrument in its attachment of King's Equity
Jurisdiction, and properly so. Hiring the collection services of
the State (reserving the right to sue someone in a court) and
getting the Government to seize the assets or otherwise assist
you in remedying the breach of contract that is on your hands,
is the same type of advantage and benefits enjoyed, for example,
when shopping centers hire private security guards, in the sense
that your are using someone else's muscle to do your dirty work
for you. Yes, calling on the Contract Enforcement Benefits of
the State is a very quiet type of benefit acceptance; it is a
benefit that attaches automatically, and is presumed in effect
unless explicitly and bluntly waived, in advance; it is a
benefit to game players in Commerce that attaches in ways
reminiscent of the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE. Remember back some
time ago, when you possibly once signed a lease with a landlord,
did that lease state that "the parties hereto submit to the
Commerce Jurisdiction of the State of New York?" No, no such
jurisdictional submission statements are generally made on any
contracts we would be likely to enter into in the course of
business, from buying a television on time payments to
mortgaging a house. Commercial Jurisdiction is simply assumed,
and threatening to sue the other party is generally deemed to be
not very cordial in business, so silence invokes the police
powers of the State.
That UCC is the contemporary organic growth of the old unwritten
Law Merchant of our Fathers ["old" in the sense of its
impressive chronological age, not inferentially suggesting its
contemporary inappropriateness], and so when statutes exist that
state "all contracts", and "all persons", then since those
statutes possess an important attribute of PRIOR PUBLIC NOTICE,
then by your silence you have consented to their enforcement
against you, under Principles related to the RATIFICATION
DOCTRINE, if by the nature of the grievance you happen to fall
on the debtor's side of the line. Those UCC contract enforcement
statutes are Public Records, and Public Records can only be
countermanded with Public Records, so when did you file your...
"Notice of Waiver of Recourse Benefits to the UCC, Rejection of
Judicial Contract Enforcement"
..and in what public county recorder's office?
Before closing this discussion of the Uniform Commercial Code
and of King's Commerce, a few words need to be said as
instruments of elucidation on a few key points of interest; this
is a very important juristic benefit and needs to be understood
for the high-powered benefit that it really is -- and thinking
about it for a while might just cause a PERSON to view state
judges in a more favorable light when they incarcerate and seize
assets of Protesters snickering at State income and sale taxes.3
In a sense, the King and your regional Prince are actually in a
weaker position in the negotiation and subsequent enforcement of
contracts that we enter into with them, then you and I are in
private contracts we enter into amongst ourselves as we go forth
in this Life in pursuit of Commercial enrichment. The reason is
because the Commercial contracts we enter into down here between
ourselves always carry penal (incarceration) consequences for
default, even though that contract nowhere says something like...
"...the undersigned hereby agrees to be incarcerated on default
on any term or provision of this contract..."
When the King enters into a contract with someone, the exact
penal consequences, and the duration of the incarceration, are
always spelled out in those little statutes of his, and there is
no Common Law right of the King to perfect contract enforcement
by incarceration like you and I have. Our Common Law right to
get a defaulting party incarcerated originates in getting the
poor fellow CITED into a CONTEMPT OF COURT corner, which follows
the Court's Ordering of the contract's SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE by
the Party in default. Most generally used in real estate
transactions, Specific Performance is available as a remedy
under other contracts where at least some performance has
already been initiated.4
For example, signing a contract to paint a house, with, say,
some continuing feature of the work to be started within 30
days, will very much place the poor defaulting contractor in
jail if, after the 30 days has elapsed, the painting contractor
refuses to commence painting. Your MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, followed by the contractor's continued
recalcitrance, is all that is needed for a PETITION TO CITE IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT to be granted. Now summary incarceration
follows, without any trial, without any jury, and all under
chronologically compressed circumstances. That is the very same
abbreviated procedure that Tax Protesters hate and resent so
much -- and it turns out to be an invisible benefit they can use
for themselves as well in their daily pursuit of Commercial
enrichment. The King and the Prince with their juristic kingdoms
are not in any special privileged status to use hard
incarceration to perfect the enforcement of Commercial contracts
-- you and I can use the guns and cages of the State to do our
dirty work for us when others jerk their performance of a
contract on us. Yet, nowhere on that house painting contract
that the poor defaulting contractor signed, did the contractor
agree anywhere to terms that call for his Encagement if he
should ever default; but the contractor does not have to say
that or anything else relating to Judicial enforcement, as all
PERSONS entering into contracts are assumed to have a good
working knowledge of the laws and types of legal recourse that
may be exercised by the other party.5
Where did Government get the power to pull off that fast
incarceration trick? Government got the power to enforce a
contract under those terms because both parties went into that
contract yielding some of their Natural Law rights to be
otherwise left alone, to each other, as they accepted some
benefit the contract offered.6 And when they entered into
contracts by accepting a benefit, the duty to honor the contract
necessarily infers the consequence to pay damages if a default
surfaces.7
This story about the poor painting contractor is exemplary of
the invisible Commercial contract enforcement benefits that
Government is offering to private parties: A gun, a cage and
asset seizure.8
Most folks view the consequences of contract default as being
just asset seizure, which is not true. Incarceration is a remedy
available at the discretion of the other Party. So now we need
to ask ourselves a question: Is it moral, ethical, proper and
reasonable for Government to be financially compensated for
doing the dirty work of enforcing our Commercial Contracts for
us? Certainly.
Do you believe that the old Debtor's Prisons that our Fathers
had in the old days are actually gone?9
Not true. There are very much Debtor's Prisons here in the
contemporary United States, and the King or your Prince does not
need to be a facial Party to the contract in order to get
someone jailed because of an unpaid debt. For example, I once
worked for a real estate syndication company that managed a
large volume of apartment projects. When those apartment rental
leases the tenants signed went into a delinquency status and
then default, Petitions were filed by the Landlord seeking to
Compel the Specific Performance of the Lease, and thereafter,
Contempt of Court. When the Sheriff came around with either an
Arrest or Bench Warrant to serve on the poor Tenant for Contempt
of Court, all of a sudden back rental payments mysteriously made
an appearance. But in some cases, the poor folks just did not
have any money at all, and they were incarcerated for failure to
pay a debt, and they sat there until friends and family coughed
up the money (that's right, a Debtor's Prison in the United
States of America in 1980). So there very much still remains a
Debtor's Prison today, and contracts we enter into should not be
indifferently tossed aside with the erroneous belief that the
Debtor's Prisons no longer exist: As there are automatic penal
consequences for any prospective type of contract default, when
that contract falls under the General Commercial Jurisdiction of
the State. And unless specifically waived by one of the Parties,
the assertion of an attachment of King's Commerce Jurisdiction
is simply assumed absent explicit disavowal. Only the other
Party's specific waiver of Recourse to King's Commerce (which
means that prospective Judicial Enforcement is waived), can
spare you from the lonely Encagement that always characterizes
contemporary incarceration.
Those are examples of the type of power you are dealing with
when writing contracts that fall under the General Commercial
Jurisdiction of the State. Nature means serious business when
contracts are signed (and if Nature means business in that
Department, then so does Heavenly Father, who created Nature.)
And since the State is offering rather strong contract
enforcement services for contracts written in King's Commerce,
it is very reasonable, moral, and proper that a profit or gain
equity participation tax be levied on Commercial incomes
acquired under the enforcement benefits the States offers.10
Yes, INCOME, so called, is in fact the joint product of the
combined efforts of you with your Commercial Contracts, and of
Government; since Government is offering to enforce your
contracts for you, INTER ALIA.11
If, for example, you are a medical doctor with Accounts
Receivables outstanding from your patients who turned out to be
deadbeats by refusing to pay, then the Collection Agency you
turn the debt over to for collection very much is participating
in creating the "income" that they succeeded in collecting from
your deadbeats, even though you first originated the work. And
so when you enter into Commercial Contracts with other folks,
you are leaving the other person in such a STATE OF MIND that
leads him to believe that you are going to sue and bring down
Government if he defaults -- and so now the State is very much
participating in creating whatever income that Contract pulls in
for you, since you have no evidence that his payment to you was
not out of fear of Government intervention. Whether or not you
actually had to start an action in the Courts and sue the fellow
who went into default or not, is not relevant; what is relevant
is that when the defaulting Party went into that Contract with
the knowledge that he was up against a lawsuit upon his breach.
Remember the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE: There are many legitimate
situations where a person's silence can be reasonably assumed to
give approval to a proposition, or to "Ratify," the proposition
that was made. And now that we have come to grips with this
invisible benefit of Contract Enforcement, which also creates an
invisible contract for us Commercial Contract beneficiaries to
pay state taxation reciprocity, fighting its existence really
isn't very appropriate: Because it is actually very easy to
exclude the State from being an invisible "partner" with you in
that Commercial Contract. The State is stripped of its status as
an Equity Partner when you first descend upon your local
Courthouse and record a WAIVER OF JUDICIAL CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
Public Notice of some type; making note of the Liber and Page
Number the Clerk recorded it at in the Clerk's Miscellaneous
Documents section; then in the future by telling the people that
you enter into contracts with from that time forward, of your
filed Waiver and Notice that if they default for any reason,
then there will be absolutely no lawsuit or Government
intervention thrown at them at any time. That's right, if they
default, then you are simply going to turn around and walk away
from the contract. That Notice to your Parties in Contract,
synchronous with the Execution of the Contract, is what it will
take to slice Government out of your daily contracts and away
from having Juristic Institutions be that silent background
Equity Partner that appellate Judges talk about. A lot of folks
reading these lines will make a business judgment and refuse to
waive Judicial Contract Enforcement, and for good reasons:
Because you know that if Government is not brought to bear on
your behalf, that is if you pre-emptively waive the right to
file property liens and Court collection actions on that
Contract, then you will never get paid by the other fellow; and
that is fine -- if Government is your silent background Partner,
then pay your reciprocating taxes due for juristic benefits
having been accepted, and stop defiling yourself.12
Still, other folks will not want to file the Courthouse Waiver
and then specifically notify their Parties in Contract that
there will not be any Government enforcement intervention,
because they will perceive of themselves as being looked upon as
some type of oddball, which is also correct. But those are
business assessment questions you have to make for yourselves
individually, and cannot be related to your liability to pay the
QUID PRO QUO of state sales and income taxes once these special
juristic benefits have been accepted by you. Overall, by now you
should be beginning to see why I don't have a lot of sympathy
for those types of Tax Protesters that snicker at Judges when
the Judge is trying to explain error to a Protester who is not
listening; the Protester's enemy is not the Judge, as the
Protester believes, but rather himself, as he refuses to even
consider the remote possibility that there may have been some
error in his own reasoning.
The acceptance of both general protection benefits and contract
enforcement benefits are that QUID PRO QUO exchange of valuable
reciprocity that Nature wants to see, when King's Equity excise
taxes are laid on Commercially acquired sources of profits and
gains. The State Socialists of the Rothschildean Dynasty on a
National level, and assorted domestic Gremlins like Nelson
Rockefeller as Governor of the State of New York with the state
teacher's unions on a state level, and numerous other Special
Interest Groups who initiate the enabling legislation to levy
taxes on Commercial incomes are not perverting our Father's
Common Law at all: They are merely using that Law to enrich
themselves while secondarily perfecting our Enscrewment in the
practical setting (although not all Special Interest Groups seek
our express Enscrewment as a primary objective).
That is representative of the powerful attachment of Commercial
Jurisdiction, and is an indicative exemplary model of the
underlying strength of the UCC as an operating appendage to
King's Commerce, and represents the strength of contracts
written under the Commercial Jurisdiction of your regional
Prince. Under the UCC and General Commerce Jurisdiction of
Government, both the King and the Prince are presumed to be an
APPLIED Party to the contract, even though nowhere on that
contract is the King or Prince mentioned FACIALLY, and for good
reason: Because by your silence, you have left the distinct
impression on the other Party that if they default on you, you
will be seeking the gun, cages and asset seizure services of the
Judiciary to enforce your contracts for you. But what if you are
different? What if you have filed a WAIVER OF RECOURSE TO THE
UCC'S BENEFITS? What if you came out into the open and bluntly
told the PERSON you are contracting with that if, for any
reason, they default, then you simply intend to turn around and
walk away from the contract, and no Government enforcement
action will be commenced?13
So what if you, too, are different? What if you are not
interested in using the police powers of the State to threaten
other Parties that you have entered into contracts between, with
a gun if they default? What if your daily livelihood contracts
state that, as it pertains to you as a Party, that they are
written outside of King's Commerce, outside of the Commercial
Jurisdiction of your Prince, and that the other Party
understands that your recourse to Judicial Enforcement is being
waived as an Election of your Remedies? What if those contracts
you sign for a livelihood state that you are waiving Commercial
enforcement benefits, even though the other Party may not be
waiving such enforcement benefits? Is that portion of the
contract written outside of the General Commercial Jurisdiction
of the state really enforceable by state Judges?14 Now that you
have Elected your own Remedies should a default occur, and
Government enforcement benefits have now been waived, what right
does the King or Prince have to levy an equity participation tax
on profits or gains he did not assist in creating? Now what?
So now, before snickering at state or federal magistrates
tossing out your Tax Protesting arguments, you need to ask
yourself a question first: If my Employer stopped paying me for
my wages, do I have the right to sue him for damages? If you
have reserved the right to sue, then that Employment contract
you entered into some time ago fell under the enriching penumbra
of the Commerce Jurisdiction of the State, and so all the money
you have pulled out of that contract is very much taxable; and
there is nothing immoral, unethical, or even unreasonable about
the Income Tax, so called, as it contributes reciprocating money
back to Government that once participated in creating it (by
leaving the other party in contract [your Employer, for
instance] with the impression that guns, cages, and asset
seizure power of Government will be brought to bear if that
contract goes into default). Yes, the Income Tax is politically
distasteful, and being engineered by demons, Gremlins, and
Bolsheviks the way it was to accomplish proprietary social
wealth transfer objectives, it carries many secondary adverse
national economic consequences along with it; but as a matter of
Law the underlying moral and ethical basis for it are very much
legitimate, since voluntary contracts are in effect. We may not
sense that the percentage amount Royalty wants is reasonable
from a benefit/cost perspective, but such a determination is a
business question and risk assessment that you need to make for
yourself individually, and this is not a question for
magistrates to come to grips with after you previously accepted
and experienced contract enforcement benefits. Unless you
specifically waived contract recourse to the Uniform Commercial
Code/Law Merchant/Federal "Consumer Protection" Statutes, etc.,
and have told other Persons that you are contracting with of
your irrevocable wavier, it then becomes immoral and
unreasonable for you not to compensate Royalty for Employment
contract enforcement benefits and miscellaneous services
rendered (minimum wages, maximum working hours per week, etc.),
when such QUID PRO QUO reciprocity is expected back in return by
Government. Yes, King's Commerce is very much a closed, private
domain for all those who enter therein seeking to enrich
themselves, and invisible contracts between the Gameplayer in
Commerce and Royalty are automatically in effect, as protection
and contract enforcement benefits conditionally offered by your
regional Prince were accepted by you, in your state of silence,
and by refusing to disavow Government contract intervention
rights.15
Generally speaking, state judges are much more interested in
this Waiver of Contract Enforcement and UCC Benefits as a
defense line in a tax prosecution Case than defenses centered
around the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (even though state
courts have jurisdiction to hear Employer/Employee grievances
arising under this Act). State judges show little interest in
the invisible contracts in effect when Federal Reserve Notes are
recirculated, or when the benefits of Debt Liability Limitations
in Admiralty were accepted, and the like. And inversely, Federal
Judges have little interest in this UCC/Contract Enforcement
Benefits Waiver as a defense line in a Federal Tax Case, and
show great interest in your acceptance of the benefits of the
National Citizenship Contract.16
Let us contemplate something for a moment: Notice how when you
sue someone for a typical breach of contract, you do not cite or
quote any state or federal statutes. If the contract was reduced
to a written statement, then the defaulted covenants in the
contract are recited within the body of the Complaint for
relief, but no averment of statutory infraction is made.
For example, after having sold a car to someone on time
payments, the buyer's default in making the payments would be
merely recited within your state court Complaint as being merely
that on such and such a day, a contract was entered into, that
payments of $XX.XX per month were due and payable on the first
of each month, and that now the car's purchaser has defaulted,
starting on payment number 8. Therefore, a judgment is demanded.
At no place within that everyday type of breach of contract
Complaint did we ever cite a statute. Quoting a statute is not
necessary to seek judicial relief in a state court, and quoting
(or invoking) statutes is not necessary to perfect a judgment
against someone -- and with that background information in mind,
we turn now and address a very important correlative point of
Law that Patriots and Protesters are totally missing: That the
mere use of just the Judicial Branch of Government is your
acceptance of a juristic benefit, and may give rise to a
reciprocal taxing liability on your part (if the political
jurisdiction is operating on such an expectation of reciprocity,
such as a state income tax). It is important to understand that
by the mere omission of quoting a Legislative statute to invoke
your courtroom relief, you in no way absolve or detach yourself
from the taxation liability that follows PERSONS around who use
and accept such judicial juristic benefits. The reason why I am
spending the time to explain this concept of attaching tax
liability by sole use of the Judicial Branch to pursue
Commercial enrichment is because the same identical Tax
Protesters, and the same identical Highway Contract Protesters
(who snicker at Judges holding them attached to Income Tax
statutes), try and use the mere omission of reciting Legislative
statutory pronouncements as grounds for evading the payment of
taxation reciprocity. Specifically what I am referring to is
perhaps best elucidated by commentator Lysander Spooner:
"The author claims the copyright of this book in England, on
Common Law principles, without regard to acts of Parliament; and
if the main principle of this book itself be true, viz., that no
legislation, in conflict with the Common Law, is of any
validity, his claim is a legal one. He forbids any one to print
the book without his consent."17
That's right, Lysander Spooner is claiming a "Common Law
Copyright;" like a large number of Tax and Highway Contract
Protesters today in the 1980s, these folks today are also now
claiming "Common Law Copyright" on their newsletters, books,
magazines, and miscellaneous periodicals. But here is where the
Protesters are in serious error: Remember the breach of
contract example -- you do not need to cite any Legislative
statutes to seek Judicial contract enforcement relief. And so
accordingly, the mere use of the Judicial branch of Government,
all by itself, is your acceptance of a juristic benefit.18
And so now you "Common Law Copyright" Protesters are accepting
the use of the gun barrel and asset seizure services of
Government, when claiming a "Common Law Copyright"; Protesters
are in fact threatening to use the guns, cages and asset seizure
services offered by Government, and so now Protesters owe back
in return the financial compensation reciprocity expected in the
nature of Enfranchisement, Income Taxes, or anything else
Government wants: Because special juristic benefits were
accepted by the "Common Law Copyright" Protester. By reason of
Protesters using the police powers of Government to pursue
financial enrichment (and Protesters claiming "Common Law
Copyright" very much are pursuing financial enrichment by
threatening to use Government to try and prevent other persons
from redistributing their intellectual property), "Copyright"
Protesters are using the police powers of Government to pursue
Commercial enrichment with the same identical full force and
effect as if the Protester had formally entered into a
Government created shared monopoly, such as the Bar Association
created for Attorneys.19
So I might suggest to those "Common Law" Protesters out there
that they explore the possibility of re-evaluating their
protesting relational status with their regional Prince, as they
erroneously and immorally try to weasel, twist and squirm their
way around the reciprocal taxation liability due in return back
to Government, as Protesters try and deflect the attention of
their police power enforcement benefits grab off to the side by
not quoting from legislative statutes; for if I were a Judge
presiding over your State Income Tax incarceration ceremonies, I
too would order your commitment to a cage: The Protester
accepted the special Government protectorate benefit offered to
exclude unauthorized intellectual property distribution -- the
fact that the Protester used only the Judicial Branch to protect
his intellectual property by Noticing out a "Common Law"
Copyright, and not the Legislative and Judicial Branches
combined by citing statutes, does not vitiate anyone's adhesive
reciprocal liability for either financial compensation taxation
or perhaps Enfranchisement expectations retained by Juristic
Institutions.20
1 "Whenever an individual enters into a contract, I think his
assent is to be inferred, to abide by those rules in the
administration of justice which belong to the jurisprudence of
the country of the contract."
- ODGEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 284 (1827).
2 "...we hold that the Government of the United States is one
having jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its
territory, and acting directly upon each Citizen..."
- IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, at 599 (1894).
3 Appreciating the benefits of viewing a scenario from someone
else's position is a Principle well known to many people, who
have seen the benefits derived therefrom. Negotiators are taught
and trained the application of this Principle explicitly as they
are instructed to listen very carefully and figure out what they
call the other person's PERCEPTUAL MODE, so your ideas then make
good sense to the other party. [There are many books published
on the ART OF NEGOTIATION, see generally THE BUSINESS OF
NEGOTIATION by Jerry Richardson, Avon Books, New York (1981)].
"Recently two of my sons were squabbling over some leftover
apple pie, each insisting that he should have the larger slice.
Neither would agree to an even split. So I suggested that one
boy cut the pie any way he liked, and the other boy could choose
the piece he wanted. This sounded fair to both of them, and they
accepted it. Each felt that he had gotten a square deal. This
was an example of PERFECT negotiation."
- Gerald Nierenberg in THE ART OF NEGOTIATION, at 7 [Simon and
Schuster (1968)].
Being able to see the grievance from the eyes of the other party
was the key that unlocked the slice of pie confrontation; and
use of this same Principle by Tax Protesters will unlock the
mysterious nature of the King's adhesive Income Tax grab.
Although this Principle [of not judging yourself until we have
first tried to see things from the eyes of our adversaries] has
escaped the attention of Tax Protesters, the Sioux Indians
plainly saw the obvious benefits that inured to its users, by
incorporating this Principle into a prayer of theirs:
"Oh Great Spirit, let me not judge my neighbor 'till I have
walked in his moccasins."
For many Protesters I have seen, there is a procedural attribute
of Negotiations in the area of the handling of impending
confrontations with juristic adversaries in taxing jurisdictions
that needs refinement. All too often, the typical Tax Protester,
when given a Notice, some Summons, some Letter, on hearing some
termite's voice beckoning for some money, the typical
Protester's reaction is to turn around, toss aside, and then
ignore the Notice, the Summons, and the voice. In distinction to
that deflection MODUS OPERANDI, in all Federal taxing districts
of the IRS that I have had to approach the IRS for some reason,
I find those federal termites to be more than receptive,
cooperative, and reasonable in speaking to me [but in a few
cases I had to threaten judicial Mandamus relief in the form of
demanding a Contested Case Administrative Hearing to get their
attention], since the Taxpayer (my client) typically slams the
door in their face and hides in the closet. In the context of a
discussion about IRS JEOPARDY ASSESSMENTS, a senior federal
termite once had a few words to say about the easy accessibility
of this junior termites to converse with [however biased this
termite is, there is some merit in what he is saying]:
"At any point in the collection process under a jeopardy
assessment, we stand ready to meet with the Taxpayer, discuss
the situation with him, and, with his cooperation, work out
arrangements for conversion and maintenance of his property,
discharge of any appropriate part from the efforts of the tax
lien, and liquidation of the balance due over such a period of
time as will enable him to avoid undue hardship to himself and
still protect the Government's interests [by LIQUIDATING THE
BALANCE, this termite is also referring to the standard IRS
practice of entering into installment contracts with Taxpayers
who spent the tax money before the IRS collected it].
"We are aware that our collection efforts, in jeopardy cases,
or, more particularly, our initial collection efforts, may have
great impact on the Taxpayer. The recording of a NOTICE OF
FEDERAL TAX LIEN may impair his ability to borrow. Seizure of
property in his possession may put a stop to one or more of his
business ventures. Levy on third parties may divest him of all
or nearly all of the ready cash which would otherwise have been
available to him at the time the levy was served. However, as a
practical proposition, we doubt that any Taxpayer is left
penniless and without the means to live as a result of our
efforts to collect a jeopardy assessment. Typically, in jeopardy
cases the Taxpayer will have complex financial interests,
numerous sources of income, and a variety of assets. We seldom,
if ever, have full knowledge of all his financial dealings and
holdings. Nor are we able, as a general rule, to locate all
assets, even when we have knowledge that they exist. Based on
experience and observation we would say that no jeopardy
assessment has placed a Taxpayer in such straitened
circumstances that he was unable to provide the necessities for
himself and his family. If any such hardship cases should arise,
we would certainly attempt to reach an appropriate resolution
[but the IRS cannot do that when the Taxpayer hides in a closet,
or otherwise declines to tell the termites of the serious
impairment in providing for his family that this Jeopardy
Assessment will bring to pass]."
- William Smith, Deputy Commissioner, in CONSTITUTIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF ENFORCING INTERNAL REVENUE STATUTES,
in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice
and Procedure, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,
90th Congress, Second Session (January, 1968), at page 75.
Although his statement that no IRS JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT ever
seriously damaged a Taxpayer is factually defective, his open
door policy pronouncements are an accurate presentation of IRS
accessibility in general and I would suggest that Tax
Protesters, and others simply stuck, might benefit themselves
greatly when they stop exhibiting reluctance to converse with
adversaries. By simply asking the QUESTION: What, termite, do
you intend to do next? strips the termites of their tactical
advantage of surprise, and shifts the balance of power over to
you, since now you know exactly what is impending [remember that
in any setting, the quality of judgment exercised always
escalates dramatically when the basis of factual information
that the judgment is operating on is enlarged]. There can be no
negotiating SAVIOR-FAIRE practiced when hiding in a closet; and
ANYTHING LESS than dropping what you are doing, going down to
the marble kingdom that those termites are nestled in, and
speaking to the little termite face-to-face, is in fact the
functional equivalent of HIDING IN A CLOSET.
4 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE is a very common remedy for breach of
contract. In general, see:
- Kronman in SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 45 University of Chicago Law
Review 351 (1978);
- Alan Schwartz in THE CASE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 89 Yale
Law Review 271 (1979);
- Thomas Ulen in THE EFFICIENCY OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE:
TOWARDS A UNIFIED THEORY OF CONTRACT REMEDIES, 83 Michigan Law
Review 341 (1984).
5 "...since a knowledge of the laws, policy and jurisprudence of
a state is necessarily imputed to every one entering into
contracts within its jurisdiction, of what surprise can he
complain, or what violation of public faith, who still enters
into contracts, under that knowledge?"
- OGDEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 285 (1827).
6 "Right and obligation are considered by all ethical writers as
correlative terms. Whatever I, by my contract, give another a
right to require of me, I, by that act, lay myself under an
obligation to yield or bestow. The obligation of every contract
will then consist of that right or power over my will or
actions, which I, by my contract, confer upon another. And that
right and power will be found to be measured by neither moral
law alone, nor universal law alone, nor by the laws of society
alone, but by a combination of the three -- an operation in
which the moral law is explained and applied by the law of
nature, and both modified and adapted to the exigencies of
society by positive law."
- OGDEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 281 (1827).
7 "The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction
that you must pay damages if you do not keep it..."
- Oliver W. Holmes in THE PATH OF THE LAW, 10 Harvard Law
Review 457, at 462 (1897).
Oliver Holmes felt deeply about this RECIPROCAL OBLIGATION DUTY
being handled firmly and properly by the Judiciary, and he was
later appointed to the Supreme Court, his concern surfaced again
in one of his first Supreme Court Opinions that he wrote [see
GLOBE REFINING COMPANY VS. LANDA COTTON OIL, 190 U.S. 540
(1903)].
8 And a gun being drawn is exactly what you will be seeing, when
you defy a CONTEMPT OF COURT Order.
9 "...and if the debtor have no movables whereupon the debt may
be levied, then his body shall be take where it may be found and
kept in prison until that he have made agreement or his friends
for him..."
- THE STATUTE OF MERCHANTS, 11 Edward the First (1283); [Also
known as the STATUTE OF ACTON BURNELL].
10 "Income is necessarily the product of the joint efforts of
the state and the recipient of the income, the state furnishing
the protection necessary to enable the recipient to produce,
receive, and enjoy it, and a tax thereon in the last analysis is
simply a portion cut from the income and appropriated by the
state as its share thereof..."
- The Mississippi State Supreme Court, in HATTIESBURG GROCERY
COMPANY VS. ROBERTSON, 126 Miss. 34, at 52 (March, 1926).
11 INTER ALIA means "among other things."
12 You will find that as we change settings away from using
Government benefits, and into an ecclesiastical setting where
Divine benefits of prosperity down here were accepted by you,
then the application of cheap TAX PROTESTING reasoning of
withholding expected reciprocity because of philosophical
disapproval with some Government Special Interest Group
enscrewment going on, over into ecclesiastical settings where
similar expectations of reciprocity exist (and exist also by
contract), will prove to be self-damaging in ways that are
difficult to correct.
13 I personally have told Persons that I had entered into
contracts with this line (that if they don't pay me, I don't
care), and they go right ahead and pay me anyway -- even though
I gave them explicit prior Notice of my waiving any possible
judicial enforcement (prior Notice meaning synchronous with the
execution of the contract). They have absolutely no fear of any
recourse of any type on my part -- none, but they go right ahead
and pay me anyway. There have been other situations where,
acting as a broker with people unacquainted with me, and where a
large amount of money was involved, I was reluctant to waive
calling out the guns and cages of the State to help me collect
my money. So discretion needs to be exercised based on:
1. The willingness of the other party to pay you;
2. Just how difficult a situation you have them into (in some
brokerage transactions, I have such control over one of the
parties that if a last minute enscrewment attempt is made, I can
kill the deal); and
3. Whether or not your services are needed by them on a
recurring basis (even unethical vultures are less reluctant to
take advantage of others when they know that a future benefit of
some type is impending from this fellow); Employers who pay
biweekly, for example, never need to be threatened with judicial
contract enforcement; when they default, simply leave.
Where Government has been invoked to participate in enforcing
COMMERCIAL contracts and collecting money from that contract,
then your failure to reciprocate is immoral, and your encagement
for broken income taxation reciprocity expectations in contracts
-- as a reminder that NATURE is serious when Covenants are in
effect -- is provident before the Eyes of Heaven.
14 The judicial enforceability of a contract depends upon the
law which the parties intend to be governing at the time the
contract was first executed. This GOVERNING LAW DOCTRINE is
supported by early English Cases and colonial American Cases
heard under Britannic jurisdiction, and now American Cases; this
election decision is also known to lawyers, writing their
contracts under the COMMERCE JURISDICTION of the States; as
CHOICE OF LAW [see CHOICE OF LAW TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY AND
EFFECT OF CONTRACTS: A COMPARISON OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN
APPROACHES TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS by John Prebble in 58 Cornell
Law Review 443 (1973)].
Other commentators have suggested that this free selection of
Government Law came out into the open with Lord Mansfield's
opinion in ROBINSON VS. BLAND, 2 Burr 1077 (1760), who quoted
from a Roman Civil Law that allowed Roman Citizens to freely
select governance by Roman Law or governance by their local
provincial law, and then applied that doctrine to a Commercial
Contract Law setting. See Professor Beale in WHAT LAW GOVERNS
THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT in 23 Harvard Law Review, at page 1
(1909). The Case written by Lord Mansfield is English Common
Law, and in every American state that I have searched, I find
that there is a trial court designated to be a court that
possesses all of the Common Law jurisdiction that was in effect
at the time of Independence in 1776. Here in New York State, for
example, the Supreme Trial Courts have been designated as courts
of General Jurisdiction:
"The general jurisdiction in law and equity which the supreme
court possesses under the provision of the Constitution includes
all of the jurisdiction which was possessed and exercised... by
the court of chancery in England on the fourth day of July,
1776..."
- NYS JUDICIARY LAW, Section 140-b, as extracted from the New
York State Constitution.
So the selection of governing law that the Robinson Case
represents is inherently available to you. Expressed in other
words, the States lack jurisdiction to force individuals to
write their contracts under the gun barrel, encagement, and
asset seizure enforcement benefits of King's Commerce. In the
1970s, when phony tax shelters were in vogue, many of them
featured "non-recourse" notes as part of the financial loss
image they tried to create. I am unable to recall any Judge that
enforced such a note in favor of a party who initially waived
potential recourse through a King's Commercial Jurisdiction
enforcement services.
Once a contract falls under the COMMERCE JURISDICTION of the
States, then there are some Constitutional limitations in effect
on CHOICE OF LAW election decisions that can be made [see
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON CHOICE OF LAW, 61 Cornell Law
Review 185 (1976) by James Martin, who uncovered an obscure line
of CHOICE OF LAW Cases in the Supreme Court].
15 Not all States expect reciprocity on money acquired under
Commercial contracts; off-hand Florida, Alaska, New Hampshire
and Texas come to mind as States that have no expectations of
Income Tax reciprocity on contract enforcement benefits accepted
at the present time, so in this Kingdoms there is no reciprocal
State Income Tax due absent special licensing. However, don't
fool yourself, as King's Commerce is very much a closed private
domain of financial conquest, and the mere failure by a Prince
to ask for this type of State Income Tax reciprocity does not
vitiate the existence of your Commerce Contract, as other
reciprocity of a different nature is often expected from
businessmen, such as some variation on a personal property tax
like an inventory, franchise, or asset tax.
16 The United States does possess the requisite jurisdiction to
operate directly on its Citizens:
"...we hold that the Government of the United States is one
having jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its
territory, and acting directly upon each Citizen..."
- IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S., at 599 (1894).
Since the King can operate directly on the Citizenry, he can
also directly expect reciprocity back in return from the
Citizenry.
17 This quotation from Lysander Spooner appears in his work
entitled ESSAY ON TRIAL BY JURY (Jewitt and Company, Cleveland,
1852).
18 For those of you who are interested in calling on the guns
and cages of Government to assist you in protecting the
Commercial interests in your intellectual creations, a notice of
"Common Law Copyright" places the world on Notice, and threatens
to all readers that use of the guns and cages of Government will
be invoked to protect your intellectual property for you by
Judicial Order and Judgment without any reliance on Legislative
pronouncements. But for those invoking Federal statutory
pronouncements, such Federal intellectual protectorate statutes
have their situs in the COPYRIGHT STATUTES, which are resident
in Title 17, which in turn is broken into 8 chapters:
1. Subject Matter and Scope of Jurisdiction.
2. Copyright Ownership and Transfer.
3. Duration of Copyright.
4. Copyright Notice, Deposit, and Registration.
5. Copyright Infringement and Remedies.
6. Manufacturing Requirement and Importation.
7. Copyright Office.
8. Copyright Royalty Tribunal.
19 To some extent the phrases INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and
INTELLECTUAL CREATIONS are interchangeable. Intellectual
Creations means everything imaginable, such as writings,
inventions, processes, designs, methods, formulas, systems,
ideas, data, information, and any other matter; however, state
law claims to Intellectual Creations are quite distinct from
true property rights. For example, see DOWLING VS. UNITED STATES
473 U.S. 207, at 216 (1985). As for the King, he gets his
jurisdiction to offer his Bouncers, guns and cages to enforce
certain Intellectual Creations under the PATENT AND COPYRIGHT
CLAUSE of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8; but at a Federal
Judicial Level, only a certain selected profile of Intellectual
Creations are actually available for protection under the
Federal guns and encagement security services offered by the
King. For example, the use of TRADEMARK protection is actually
beyond the power of the Congress to offer universally under the
Constitution's PATENT AND COPYRIGHT CLAUSE, so the Federal
protection available for registering Trademarks is of a
statutory origin, and limited to only restrain other PERSONS who
participate in INTERSTATE COMMERCE [see the TRADE-MARK CASES,
100 U.S. 82 (1879)]. Where there are other INDIVIDUALS, who are
not involved in INTERSTATE COMMERCE, have been found violating
your Federal Trademark interests, then prospective Federal
enforcement does not protect your Trademarks. The development
and commercialization of new products and processes is one of
the objectives behind Federal Copyright statutes; see INDIVIDUAL
INNOVATION AND PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAW AMENDMENTS in Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the
Administration of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, 96th Congress, Second Session, Serial Number 61
(April, May, June, 1980).
20 Anything a judge does to you, including incarceration, in
order to get you to think twice about the propriety of
dishonoring contracts, can only inure to your Everlasting
Blessing and Benefit -- but with their noses immersed in
statutes, judges generally never bother to identify the
existence of contracts for what they really are [as I mentioned
in the Armen Condo Letter], as they rarely ever openly state at
the Sentencing Hearing that the Defendant was caught in
defilement under contract.
